Template:Did you know nominations/Alice Marriott (actress)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Alice Marriott (actress)[edit]
.jpg)
Alice Marriott as Hamlet
- ... that 19th century actress Alice Marriott (pictured) not only played the part of Hamlet in doublet and hose onstage in Britain and America, but also "made the female Hamlet respectable in England"? Source: Tony Howard, Women as Hamlet, Cambridge University Press (2007), pp79-86
- Comment: QPQ - Mair von Landshut
Created by Storye book (talk). Self-nominated at 15:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC).
New enough, definitely long enough, great images, interesting person; hook is a quote with a good source. Almost there! My main reservation is that the article has a lot of long extracts from reviews. While the reviews themselves are out of copyright and this isn't a policy violation, I think the article would benefit from a more concise career section, and a much abbreviated "reviews and commentaries" section. Also, the descendants section is long; her notability doesn't rest on her relationships. Maybe just mention the notables, and let the reader click their names if they need to know more about those people. Penny Richards (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Penny Richards, for your prompt review - much appreciated.
- Regarding the background and descendants section, one of the reasons why I put what you call "long extracts" in biographies is that I am answering valid questions about the subject, and the extracts cannot be summarised without venturing into a fixed interpretation which might beg controversy. I think it is preferable to keep some things open, where they answer a question to an extent, but contain ambiguities or implications. The details about Marriott's husband's financial inadequacy, for example, partially back up Marriott's father's comments about him, and partially back up the stories that she had to do all the management herself (and part of her notability is that she was a manager of Sadler's Wells for some years), but they don't quite back it up. So I think it's valid to give what evidence we have, and allow the reader to put things together. I think it matters to know that Marriott achieved what she did under stress - being a public persona with three illegitimate kids and a hapless husband can't have helped in those days.
- Regarding the "long" quotes in the review section, I think we need as much as we can get of descriptions of her voice and acting style. I agree that actors with the benefit of sound and video recordings don't need that kind of treatment - but for 19th century actors this is all we can get. The reader or student might have difficulty finding all that by themselves, but here it is in the only form possible. The main question for me - and presumably for a student using this biog as a first stop - is, how is it that she was so very much respected for putting on doublet and hose with that matronly figure, when our first reaction might be to expect her to be just another British eccentric? Times then were different, and I think it takes a lot to answer that particular question.
- It worries me when you say, "her notability doesn't rest on her relationships." Notability here isn't about the shallow meaning of importance. It's about information being something that is worth knowing. It is worth knowing whether an actress with high achievements came from an acting background, whether she was constantly working under an unusual amount of stress, and having information that gives you a feel of what her acting persona was like, so that you can get an inkling of whether her stage achievements were notable or not.
- Just showing that she had two famous grandsons, dressed as Hamlet and ran a theatre is not enough, in my opinion. I don't believe I have broken any WP rules by including extracts containing complex explanations, when I have had valid reasons for doing so. Storye book (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- The overuse of quotations is discouraged on Wikipedia. See WP:QUOTE for guidelines and recommended remedies. - Penny Richards (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- So it may be, when the overuse is to no purpose. But in the case of this actress whose success and background raises questions, there is a purpose in using the quotations, hence it's not overuse.
However if this is causing you a problem, I request a second opinion.. Storye book (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)- Update: I have had second thoughts on this, and I may be able to shorten those sections, but it will need careful thought, so please give me a few days. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Storye book (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Well done, I think the article is much improved from two days ago. (And those pictures are just grand.) An interesting subject and a good candidate for DYK. Penny Richards (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you! And thank you for your patience and support. Much appreciated. Storye book (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Update: I have had second thoughts on this, and I may be able to shorten those sections, but it will need careful thought, so please give me a few days. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- So it may be, when the overuse is to no purpose. But in the case of this actress whose success and background raises questions, there is a purpose in using the quotations, hence it's not overuse.
